Negligently Causing a Fire

According to § 170 of the Criminal Code (StGB), negligently causing a fire occurs when a fire is caused by negligent conduct without the perpetrator intentionally causing the fire. The decisive factor is not the property damage, but the public danger triggered by the fire to people, animals, or third-party property. The injustice lies in the breach of duty by disregarding necessary precautionary measures in fire-hazardous activities. Criminal liability is linked to the objectively foreseeable risk of fire and its actual realization. Negligently causing a fire is therefore not merely a mishap, but a criminal offense of endangerment.

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of the offense covers exclusively the externally perceptible events. Decisive are concrete actions, omissions, sequences, means used, and consequences that occurred. Internal processes such as intent, knowledge, or motives are irrelevant and do not belong to the objective element of the offense.

The objective element of the offense of negligently causing a fire is fulfilled if a conduct or breach of duty by omission causes a fire within the meaning of § 169 of the Criminal Code (StGB). A fire exists when a fire spreads uncontrollably and is no longer easily controllable. A mere ignition is not sufficient; a fire-typical, independent course of fire is required.

Since § 170 of the Criminal Code (StGB) refers to § 169 of the Criminal Code (StGB), the same requirements regarding the effect of the fire and the endangerment situation apply to the objective element of the offense. The fire must either have been caused on a third-party object without the owner’s consent or on one’s own object or with the owner’s consent, provided that the life or limb of a person or third-party property is endangered to a great extent.

The objective element of the offense is already fulfilled if a real danger situation arises due to the fire. Actual personal injury or property damage is not required. The decisive factor is that the fire, according to its course, is suitable to significantly endanger people or third-party legal interests.

Qualifying circumstances

According to § 170 para. 2 of the Criminal Code (StGB), an aggravated negligent fire exists if the act

• results in the death of a person or
• serious bodily injuries to a large number of people or
• puts many people in distress

as a consequence.

If the act has resulted in the death of a large number of people, the most serious qualification exists.

These consequences must be causally attributable to the fire. The actual occurrence of the serious consequences is decisive, not merely the abstract dangerousness of the fire.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The subject of the offense can be any person who is criminally responsible. No special personal characteristics are required. Anyone who causes a fire through their conduct or breach of duty by omission can be a perpetrator.

Object of the Offense:

The object of the offense is any object on which the fire arises. This can be a third-party object without the owner’s consent or one’s own object or a third-party object with consent, provided that the life or limb of people or third-party property is endangered to a great extent. The protected legal interest is not the object itself, but the safety of the general public.

Act:

The act consists of causing a fire by action or breach of duty by omission. A conduct is required that directly leads to the emergence and uncontrolled spread of the fire. A mere ignition is not sufficient; a fire-typical, independent course of fire is decisive.

Result of the Offense:

The result of the offense lies in the emergence of the fire and the resulting concrete endangerment of people or third-party property. Actual personal injury or property damage is not required. If the death of a person, serious bodily injuries to a large number of people, or the distress of many people occurs, there is a qualification according to § 170 para. 2 of the Criminal Code (StGB) .

Causality:

There must be a causal connection between the conduct or omission and the fire. The fire must have arisen precisely because of this conduct and have gotten out of control. Without this conduct, there would have been no fire.

Objective Attribution:

The result is objectively attributable if exactly the typical fire hazard is realized that § 169 and § 170 of the Criminal Code (StGB) want to prevent. What is meant is the uncontrollable spread of the fire with the concrete threat to people and third-party legal interests.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

Negligently causing a fire covers cases in which an uncontrollable fire development is triggered by negligent conduct or breach of duty by omission, which constitutes a significant danger to people or third-party legal interests. The focus of the injustice is not on the property damage, but on the public danger emanating from the fire. Decisive is the fire-typical uncontrollability of the fire. The difference to arson lies exclusively in the absence of intent.

• § 125 of the Criminal Code (StGB) – Damage to Property: Damage to property covers the damage or destruction of an object without public danger. It exists if an object is damaged by fire, for example, without the fire spreading uncontrollably. If there is only a local fire event that remains controllable and does not constitute a danger to third parties, there is no fire, but damage to property. However, as soon as the fire spreads independently and gets out of control, it is § 170 of the Criminal Code (StGB).
• § 169 of the Criminal Code (StGB) – Arson: Arson requires that the fire is caused intentionally. The perpetrator acts with knowledge and intent in relation to the causation of the fire and the public danger. § 170 of the Criminal Code (StGB), on the other hand, covers cases in which the perpetrator does not want the fire, but causes it through breach of duty. The external course of events is identical, the difference lies solely in the internal element of the offense. If there is intent, § 170 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is excluded.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

Genuine concurrence exists if further independent offenses are added to the negligent causation of a fire, such as negligent bodily injury, serious bodily injury, negligent homicide, damage to property, or trespassing. The offenses stand side by side, as different legal interests are violated.

Spurious Concurrence:

Spurious concurrence exists if another element of the offense completely covers the entire content of injustice of the act. This is only conceivable in exceptional cases in the case of negligent fire, as § 170 of the Criminal Code (StGB) as a public endangerment offense has an independent content of injustice.

Multiple Offenses:

Multiple offenses exist if several negligent causations of fire are committed independently of each other, for example, at different locations or at different times. Each fire constitutes a separate criminal act.

Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The public prosecutor’s office must prove that the accused person has caused a fire through negligent conduct or breach of duty by omission. The decisive factor is not the mere property damage, but the proof that there has been an uncontrollable fire development with public danger. The decisive factor is that the fire was no longer controllable and there was a concrete danger to people or third-party legal interests.

In addition, it must be proven whether aggravating consequences of the act have occurred, such as serious injuries, deaths, or the distress of many people.

It must be proven, in particular, that

• a fire actually occurred,
• the fire has spread independently and uncontrollably,
• the object concerned was third-party or, despite the consent of third parties, a danger occurred,
• there was a concrete danger to people or third-party property,
• the fire is causally attributable to the conduct or omission of the accused person,
• there was no merely locally limited or immediately controllable fire action,
• if applicable, serious injuries, deaths, or emergencies have occurred.

The public prosecutor’s office has to present whether the course of the fire, spread, and danger situation are objectively ascertainable and whether the typical fire hazard has been realized.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether a fire exists in the legal sense. The focus is on the question of whether the fire was uncontrollable, whether there was a public danger, and whether this is objectively attributable to the accused person.

In addition, the court examines whether aggravating consequences of the act have actually occurred and can be attributed to the accused.

In doing so, the court takes into account in particular

• Type, intensity, and progression of the fire,
• speed of spread and controllability of the fire,
• the endangerment situation for people and third-party objects,
• Fire cause investigation and expert opinions,
• Crime scene traces and fire residues,
• witness statements on the origin and course of the spread,
• Fire department logs and incident reports,
• medical findings in the case of injured persons,
• the temporal connection between conduct and outbreak of fire.

The court clearly distinguishes between mere playing with fire, damage to property without public danger, and controllable fire events without fire character.

Accused Person:

The accused person bears no burden of proof. However, they can raise reasonable doubts, particularly regarding

• whether a fire actually existed,
• whether the fire was controllable or quickly extinguishable,
• whether a public danger existed for people or third-party objects,
• whether the fire is causally attributable to their conduct or omission,
• whether there is only damage to property,
• whether the event was negligent and not culpably in breach of duty,
• whether alternative causes of fire are possible,
• whether contradictions or gaps exist in the presentation of the course of the fire.

She can also demonstrate that the event took a different course, the fire did not get out of control, or the requirements for negligently causing a fire are not met.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is particularly important in the case of negligently causing a fire:

• Fire reports and expert reports,
• Fire department and incident logs,
• witness statements on the outbreak of fire and its spread,
• video recordings or photos of the fire event,
• Trace situation at the fire site,
• medical documentations in the event of injuries,
• temporal sequences between action, omission, and outbreak of fire.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Unattended iron in apartment: The accused person leaves a switched-on iron on the ironing board and leaves the apartment. The fabric begins to burn, the fire spreads to curtains and furniture, dense smoke enters the stairwell. Several residents have to be evacuated. The decisive factor is that an uncontrollable fire development with public danger was triggered by negligent conduct.
• Disposal of hot ashes in an apartment building: The accused person empties an ash bucket with still glowing ashes into a plastic waste container in the inner courtyard. The container catches fire, the flames spread to the facade, apartments are endangered. The decisive factor is that the fire was not intentional, but was caused by negligent carelessness and a concrete danger to people and third-party property has arisen.

These examples show that negligently causing a fire always exists when a fire gets out of control due to carelessness or breach of duty and a public danger arises. The decisive factor is not the intention, but the actual triggering of an uncontrollable fire development.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of the offense of negligently causing a fire is characterized by negligence. The perpetrator does not want the fire, but causes it as a result of negligent conduct or breach of duty by omission. The decisive factor is that he disregards the necessary care to which he would have been obliged according to the circumstances and would have been able to according to his personal abilities.

Negligence exists if the perpetrator either does not consider the emergence of a fire, although he should have recognized it with due attention, or relies on the fact that it will not come to that, although the risk of fire is objectively obvious. The decisive factor is that the uncontrollable fire development would have been foreseeable and avoidable for a prudent person.

The subjective element of the offense requires no intent in relation to the causation of the fire and no approval of the public danger. The perpetrator must neither want nor accept that the fire spreads uncontrollably or endangers people and third-party legal interests. It is precisely the absence of intent that distinguishes § 170 of the Criminal Code (StGB) from arson.

The accusation of negligence refers to the fact that the perpetrator misjudges or underestimates the fire-typical dangerousness of his conduct, for example, through careless handling of open fire, heat sources, or easily flammable materials, or through the omission of obvious safety measures.

With regard to the serious consequences of the act under § 170 para. 2 of the Criminal Code (StGB) such as the death of a person, serious bodily injuries to a large number of people, or the distress of many people, no intent is required either. It is sufficient that these consequences are caused negligently and are attributable to the perpetrator.

Negligence is absent if the fire is triggered by force majeure, by a completely atypical causal chain, or by unforeseeable third-party conduct that the perpetrator could not control. Likewise, negligence is absent if the perpetrator has complied with all necessary due diligence measures and the fire has nevertheless occurred.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Culpability and mistakes

Mistake of prohibition:

A mistake of prohibition is only excusable if it was unavoidable. Anyone who handles fire, heat sources or flammable objects is obliged to inform themselves about the legal and safety-relevant limits of their actions. Particularly in the case of typical sources of danger such as candles, electrical appliances, open flames or hot ash residues, it is generally known that there is a considerable risk of fire.
Mere ignorance of criminal liability or a reckless error regarding the permissibility of the behaviour does not exclude guilt. An avoidable mistake of prohibition does not affect criminal liability.

Principle of culpability:

Only those who act with culpable negligence are liable to prosecution. The perpetrator must have disregarded the required care to which he would have been obliged according to the circumstances and which he would have been capable of according to his personal abilities. The decisive factor is that the emergence of a conflagration was objectively foreseeable and avoidable.
Anyone who seriously and justifiably trusts that there is no risk of fire and that all safety measures have been taken is not acting with culpable negligence. However, mere incorrect forecasts or carelessness despite recognisable danger constitute guilt.

Incapacity to be held accountable:

No guilt applies to anyone who, at the time of the act, was unable to recognise the dangerousness of his behaviour or to act in accordance with this insight due to a severe mental disorder, morbid mental impairment or significant inability to control. In such cases, the capacity to be at fault is excluded.
In cases of corresponding doubt, a psychiatric report is obtained. If there is only a diminished capacity to be at fault, this can have a mitigating effect.

Excusable state of necessity:

An excusable emergency situation may exist if the perpetrator acts in an acute, unreasonable emergency situation in order to avert an immediate danger to life or limb, for example, to force an escape route through smoke or heat.
The behaviour remains unlawful, but can have a guilt-reducing or excusing effect if no other reasonable means of averting the danger was available. The prerequisite is that the dangerous situation was real and immediate.

Putative self-defense:

Anyone who mistakenly believes that they have to cope with a situation similar to an emergency through their behaviour acts without intent. The error can reduce or exclude guilt if it was comprehensible and not reckless.
However, if a breach of duty of care remains, negligent responsibility comes into consideration. There is no justification in this case.

Extinction of punishment and diversion

Diversion:

The negligent causing of a conflagration is threatened in the basic offence with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine. This means that the statutory maximum limit of five years is clearly undercut in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. A diversionary settlement is therefore permissible in principle.

A diversion is particularly considered if

• no serious consequences of the crime have occurred,
• the guilt is not to be regarded as serious,
• no death has occurred,
• the accused is insightful and takes responsibility,
• the damage caused is replaced or made good,
• no relevant previous convictions exist.

In practice, the following forms of diversion are particularly relevant:

• Payment of a sum of money,
• Provision of non-profit services,
• Determination of a probationary period with obligations,
• Settlement with injured parties.

Particularly in the case of negligent apartment fires, kitchen fires, incorrect operation of electrical appliances or improper ash disposal, it is regularly examined whether a diversionary settlement is sufficient to deter the accused from further criminal offences.

Exclusion of Diversion:

A diversion is legally excluded if the act has resulted in the death of a person or the guilt is to be assessed as serious. The same applies in the case of particularly serious breaches of duty of care or if a large number of people were specifically endangered and this reveals a high degree of irresponsibility.

Likewise, diversion is practically excluded if

• serious injuries to a large number of people have occurred,
• many people have been put in distress or
• the course of the fire has shown a particularly high potential for public danger.

In these cases, the injustice is no longer regarded as minor. It regularly leads to a formal indictment and judicial conviction.

If the negligent conflagration has resulted in the death of a large number of people, diversion is legally inadmissible.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty according to the extent of the public danger, but above all according to the nature, intensity and uncontrollability of the fire and according to the specific consequences of the act. The decisive factor is how strongly the life or limb of people were endangered or injured and what extent of the danger to third-party property existed. The pure property damage clearly takes a back seat compared to the endangerment component, but remains relevant for the overall assessment.

Of particular importance is how serious the breach of duty of care is, whether the risk of fire was obviously recognisable, whether obvious safety measures were omitted and what potential for spread and escalation existed. In the case of serious consequences of the act such as serious injuries, deaths or the distress of many people, these consequences are a central factor in determining the penalty.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the fire was triggered by gross or particularly reckless breaches of duty of care,
• the course of the fire quickly got out of control,
• people were concretely endangered or injured,
• third-party property was affected to a large extent,
• there was a high degree of irresponsibility,
• relevant previous convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• a clean record,
• an early, comprehensive confession,
• recognizable remorse and insight,
• active restitution, as far as possible,
• a subordinate participation in the act,
• an excessively long duration of proceedings.

Penalty Range

In the case of negligent causing of a conflagration, the penalty range depends on the severity of the public danger and on the consequences that have occurred. The decisive factor is not the mere property damage, but the extent of the danger to people and third-party legal interests.

If a conflagration is caused negligently without serious consequences occurring, the law provides for a imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 720 daily rates. This basic form is already punishable because even negligent behaviour can trigger an uncontrollable fire development with considerable public danger.

If the negligent conflagration results in the death of a person, serious injuries to a large number of people or the distress of many people, the penalty range increases to imprisonment of up to three years. In these cases, the legislator assesses the specific damage to human life and the massive dangerous situation as particularly serious.

If the negligent conflagration leads to the death of a large number of people, the penalty range is imprisonment of six months to five years. In these constellations, the character of negligence recedes into the background and the fatal outcome of the public danger is in the foreground.

Monetary Penalty – Day-fine System

Austrian criminal law calculates monetary penalties according to the day-fine system. The number of day-fines depends on the guilt, the amount per day depends on the financial capacity. In this way, the penalty is adapted to the personal circumstances and yet remains noticeable.

• Range: up to 720 daily rates – at least €4, maximum €5,000 per day.
• Practical formula: Approximately 6 months imprisonment corresponds to around 360 day-fines. This conversion serves only as orientation and is not a rigid scheme.
• In case of non-payment: The court can impose a substitute custodial sentence. As a rule, the following applies: 1 day of substitute custodial sentence corresponds to 2 day-fines.

Note:

In the case of negligent causing of a conflagration, a fine is also regularly provided for in the basic offence. In the case of serious consequences of the act such as injuries, deaths or massive public danger, the fine recedes into the background and imprisonment is predominantly imposed.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 StGB: If the statutory penalty threat extends to up to five years, the court may impose a fine instead of a short prison sentence of no more than one year.

This possibility exists in the case of negligent causing of a conflagration in principle, as the penalty range in the basic offence is up to one year imprisonment or a fine. § 37 StGB is therefore applicable.

§ 43 StGB: A prison sentence can be conditionally suspended if it does not exceed two years and a positive social prognosis exists. This is regularly relevant in the case of § 170 StGB, as the penalty range in the basic offence is significantly lower.

§ 43a StGB: The partially suspended sentence allows a combination of unconditional and conditionally suspended parts of the sentence. It is possible for sentences over six months and up to two years. This form of suspension of sentence also comes into consideration in the case of § 170 StGB , especially in the case of a higher degree of culpability without serious consequences of the act.

§§ 50 to 52 StGB: The court may issue instructions and order probation assistance, such as

• restitution,
• behavioral requirements,
• structuring measures to prevent relapse.

In the case of negligent causing of a conflagration, these measures are typically accompanying within the framework of a conditional or partially conditional suspension of sentence. They cannot replace the imprisonment, but can additionally secure it, especially in the case of first-time offenders and insightful reappraisal of the damage.

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

In the case of negligent causing of a conflagration, the material jurisdiction depends primarily on the amount of the threatened imprisonment. In the basic offence, the act is threatened with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine. This means that the main proceedings are generally the responsibility of the district court.

If a qualification occurs and the penalty range increases to imprisonment of up to three years or to imprisonment of six months to five years, the main proceedings can no longer be conducted at the district court. In these cases, the single judge of the regional court is responsible.

District Court

This jurisdiction exists if the negligent causing of a conflagration is to be assessed in the basic offence and there are no qualifying consequences of the act. The district court decides by single judge.

Regional Court as a single judge

This jurisdiction exists if the negligent conflagration

• leads to serious injuries to a large number of people or
• results in the death of a person or
• many people are put in distress or
• results in the death of a large number of people.

In these cases, it is no longer just the public danger, but the particularly serious consequence that is in the foreground. The single judge of the regional court is then responsible.

Regional Court as a court of lay assessors and Regional Court as a jury court

A jurisdiction as a court of lay assessors or a jury court in the case of negligent causing of a conflagration does not already follow from the offence alone, because the penalty threat in the qualified framework does not exceed five years. However, a jurisdiction of a higher panel of judges can result from the context if further criminal offences are charged at the same time, which require a higher court composition.

Local Jurisdiction

The court at the place of the offense is generally responsible locally. The decisive factor is where the negligent causation of the conflagration was set or where the fire has unfolded its effect. The place of the act or the place of the fire success is decisive.

If the scene of the crime cannot be clearly determined, the jurisdiction depends on

• the residence or whereabouts of the accused person,
• the place of arrest or
• the seat of the competent public prosecutor’s office.

If there is also no clear connection, the court in whose district the indictment is filed is responsible. The decisive factor is where a purposeful, orderly and efficient procedure is best guaranteed.

Hierarchy of Courts

An appeal to the Regional Court is permissible against judgments of the District Court.

An appeal to the Higher Regional Court is permissible against judgments of the Regional Court as a single judge.

A plea of nullity to the Supreme Court only comes into consideration if the Regional Court has decided as a court of lay assessors or a jury court.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of negligent causing of a conflagration, the injured person as a private party can assert their civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings. These relate in particular to property damage, restoration costs, reduction in value as well as to consequential damage caused by the fire.

In addition, personal injury can be claimed for compensation, such as treatment costs, loss of earnings, pain and suffering and other direct consequences of the act, if people have been injured or have got into emergency situations as a result of the fire.

The private party connection inhibits the statute of limitations of the asserted claims as long as the criminal proceedings are pending. After a legally binding conclusion, the statute of limitations only continues to run to the extent that the claims have not been awarded.

A voluntary compensation for damage can have a mitigating effect, provided that it is carried out in a timely and serious manner. In the case of negligent causing of a conflagration, this mitigating effect is often significantly stronger in practice than in the case of intentional arson, because the perpetrator did not want the damage.

The lower the breach of duty of care and the faster the compensation is made, the greater its mitigating effect. If, on the other hand, there is gross negligence, considerable public danger or personal injury, the importance of compensation also recedes noticeably into the background in the case of § 170 StGB.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Overview of criminal proceedings

Commencement of Investigation

Criminal proceedings require a concrete suspicion, from which a person is considered an accused and can claim all rights of the accused. Since it is an official offense, the police and public prosecutor’s office initiate the proceedings ex officio as soon as a corresponding suspicion exists. A special declaration of the injured party is not required for this.

Police and Public Prosecutor’s Office

The public prosecutor conducts the preliminary investigation and determines the further course of action. The criminal police carry out the necessary investigations, secure evidence, take witness statements, and document the damage. Ultimately, the public prosecutor decides on discontinuation, diversion, or indictment, depending on the degree of culpability, the amount of damage, and the evidence.

Interrogation of the Accused

Before each interrogation, the accused person receives full instruction on their rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. If the accused requests legal counsel, the interrogation must be postponed. The formal interrogation of the accused serves to confront them with the accusation and to provide an opportunity for a statement.

Access to files

Access to files can be obtained from the police, public prosecutor, or court. It also includes items of evidence, provided that the purpose of the investigation is not thereby jeopardized. The private claimant’s joinder is governed by the general rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure and allows the injured party to assert claims for damages directly in criminal proceedings.

Main Hearing

The main hearing serves to take oral evidence, to assess the legal situation and to decide on any civil law claims. In particular, the court examines the sequence of events, the amount of damage and the credibility of the statements. The proceedings conclude with a conviction, acquittal or diversionary settlement.

Rights of the accused

• Information & defense: right to notification, legal aid, free choice of defense counsel, translation assistance, and submission of evidence motions.
• Silence & counsel: right to remain silent at any time; if a defense attorney is requested, the interrogation must be postponed.
• Duty to inform: prompt notification of suspicion and rights; exceptions only permitted to safeguard the purpose of the investigation.
• Practical access to files: investigation and trial records; access by third parties is restricted to protect the accused.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical guidance and behavioural advice

1. Maintain silence.
   A brief statement is sufficient: “I am exercising my right to remain silent and will first speak with my defense counsel.”
   This right applies from the very first interrogation by the police or the public prosecutor.
2. Contact defense counsel immediately.
   No statement should be made without access to the investigation files. Only after reviewing the files can the defense assess which strategy and evidence preservation measures are appropriate.
3. Secure evidence immediately.
   You should secure all available documents, messages, photos, videos, and other records as early as possible and keep copies. Digital data must be regularly backed up and protected from subsequent changes. Note down important individuals as potential witnesses and promptly record the sequence of events in a memorandum.
4. Do not contact the opposing party.
   Your own messages, calls, or posts may be used as evidence against you. All communication should take place exclusively through your defense counsel.
5. Secure video and data recordings in time.
   Surveillance videos from public transport, venues, or property management systems are often automatically deleted after only a few days. Requests for data preservation must therefore be submitted immediately to the operators, the police, or the public prosecutor’s office.
6. Document searches and seizures.
   In cases of house searches or seizures, you should request a copy of the warrant or record. Note the date, time, persons involved, and all items taken.
7. In case of arrest: make no statements about the matter.
   Insist on immediate notification of your defense counsel. Pre-trial detention may only be imposed if there is strong suspicion of guilt and an additional ground for detention. Less severe measures (e.g., pledge, reporting duty, contact ban) must take precedence.
8. Prepare reparation strategically.
   Payments, symbolic gestures, apologies, or other compensatory offers should be handled and documented exclusively through the defense. Structured reparation can positively influence diversion and sentencing.

Your Benefits with Legal Assistance

The negligent causing of a conflagration is a serious offence endangering the public. The focus is on the causation of a conflagration, the danger to people and the considerable property damage. The legal assessment depends heavily on the cause of the fire, the dynamics of its spread, the dangerous situation, the standard of care and the evidence. Even small differences in the sequence of events determine whether there is actually a negligent conflagration or whether there is a merely unfortunate chain of events without criminal relevance.

Early legal support ensures that the origin of the fire, causality, breach of duty of care and attribution are precisely examined, expert opinions are critically questioned and exculpatory circumstances are worked up in a usable way.

Our law firm

• examines whether the requirements of a conflagration are legally fulfilled or whether only a lesser offence exists,
• analyses the evidence on the cause of the fire, source of ignition, spread and endangerment of people or third-party property,
• develops a clear, realistic defence strategy involving fire experts and technical expertise.

As a representation specialised in criminal law, we ensure that the accusation of negligent causing of a conflagration is objectively classified, legally clearly delimited and defended with the necessary consistency.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation